However, a portion of the commercial was actually filmed in J. Lo’s old neighborhood and shows flashes of a copyrighted mural in Parkchester by the group TATS Cru.

“Somebody posted it on our Facebook,” Wilfredo “Bio” Feliciano, a founding member of the crew, told 1010 WINS.”You could see the car driving towards it and at a different angle driving away from it and we were like, ‘Alright, that wasn’t just a random, casual drive-by, that was actually set up two different shots for it.'”

The “I Love The Bronx” mural is located under the No. 6 train station.

“If you look at the commercial without it, it could be Any City, USA,” Feliciano said. “That mural just establishes that it’s here in the Bronx.”

The graffiti artists claim they never gave Fiat permission to use their work and are now demanding payment.

“This is a huge corporation who tried to sell to people in the Bronx using images from the Bronx but yet contributed nothing to the Bronx,” Feliciano said. “We created this, we’ve lived here our entire life, we paint these murals. You can’t just come and take our stuff, use it, make money off of it and ignore us.”

The Smoking Gun reported the ad agency hired a body double for J. Lo for the parts of the commercial that shows the Fiat driving through the Bronx.

A spokesman for the company said they are investigating the use of the image.

One Comment

WTF! This nonsense could be a boon to either graffiti ‘artists’ – even taggers – or the digital ‘airbrush’ industry! You can’t watch 2 hours of real-life or scripted TV or on-the-scene news coverage without seeing location/’artist’ specific ‘art work’! SO, the film crews would have to either airbrush the images out or track down and pay the ‘artist’ to air the show!
This nonsense is on a par with the woman who sued McDonald’s because she scalded her tongue on a cup of hot coffee … duh … coffee is SUPPOSED to be served hot – if graffiti ‘artists’ didn’t want their work to be seen they ought to do it in an enclosed gallery, no?
As far as the comment that they “contributed nothing to the Bronx”, what sort of “good will” is engendered when such ‘artwork’ is seen on the news in the environment of a drive-by shooting or the like?

Intense irony that graffiti artists would be upset that someone is using their property without permission. Even if they had permission to paint this mural, this does appear at odds with the essence of graffiti.